In my CFIF column today, I explain the double-edged sword that was Monday’s decision by the Supreme Court to disallow a radical environmental lawsuit brought by Connecticut and other states against five power companies. Please follow the link to read the whole thing, where I explain why it is that:
[T]his is bad tort law theory being overturned not because it is bad tort law, but because of reliance on bad science and bad earlier judging. Those latter two wrongs have led to a right result, but for the wrong reasons.
I don’t want to sound alarmist, because on the whole it is a very good thing the case was decided this way. As Justice Alito wrote, the question of reconsidering the bad earlier ruling was not brought before the court by any of the parties to the case, so this outcome was almost assuredly the best that could have been hoped for under the circumstances. Hans von Spakovsky explains more here.
In short, globaloney and the trial bar both took a hit, but this is far from a total victory for constitutionalists or for reasonable environmental moderates (which is what all good conservatives/conservationists should be).
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.